Update Case Entry

Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.

Case Lawsuit Title *

Case / Trial ID Number

Jurisdiction Code *

Category *

Filing Date

Decision Verdict Date

Court / Tribunal

Bench / Panel Judges

Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)

Respondent / Defendant

Dispute Summary

Outcome / Ruling

Verdict Document PDF URL

Full text judgment

[Cites
5
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Jvco 2024 Limited vs Syed Jalaluddin Alias Afzal Trading As ... on 7 April, 2026
Author:
Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench:
Tushar Rao Gedela
$~42
              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
              +         CS(COMM) 365/2026

JVCO 2024 LIMITED                                                         .....Plaintiff
                                       Through:                           Mr. Mamta Jha, Mr. Anubhav Chhabra,
                                                                          Ms. Sejal Tayal and Ms. Rita, Ms. Ritu
                                                                          Khandelwal, Advocates.
                                                      versus

SYED JALALUDDIN ALIAS AFZAL TRADING AS A.M
                        AGENCIES & ORS.                         ....Defendants
                                     Through:

CORAM:
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
                                      ORDER
%                       07.04.2026
              I.A. 9319/2026 (Additional Documents)
1.        The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under
              Order XI Rule 1(4)
of the Code of Civil Procedure
, 1908 ('
CPC
') as applicable
              to commercial suits under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015
('
CC Act
') seeking
              leave to place on record additional documents.
2.        The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with
              the provisions of the
CC Act
and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules,
              2018.
3.        Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 9320/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
4.        This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from
              instituting pre-litigation mediation under
Section 12A
of the CC Act.
5.        As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the
              judgment of the Supreme Court in
Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi
:
(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                 Page 1 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               mediation is granted.
6.        The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 9321/2026 (Exemption)
7.        This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under
Section 151
of
              CPC seeking exemption from filing the clear copies of uncertified/dim/illegible
              documents along with the captioned suit.
8.        Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true
              typed/translated/clear copies of the documents with proper margins be filed
              within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendants.
9.        The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 9318/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2,
CPC
)
10.       Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order
              XXXIX Rules 1 & 2
of CPC
, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction
              against the defendants.
11.       Plaintiff claims that its predecessor-in-interest namely Mothercare
              Global Brands Limited first adopted the trademark MOTHERCARE in the year
              1961, when its founders, namely, Selim Zilkha and Sir James Goldsmith
              opened the first MOTHERCARE store in Surrey, United Kingdom. It is
              claimed that at first, the plaintiff's business primarily focused on pushchairs,
              nursery furniture and maternity clothing, however, with the efflux of time, the
              plaintiff in the year 1968, expanded its product range and began selling
              children clothes up to an age of five and gradually over time, started selling
              children clothes up to an age of eight.
12.       Plaintiff claims that all the rights, title and interest in the trademark
              MOTHERCARE and its other formative trademarks in India were assigned to
              the plaintiff by its predecessor-in-interest vide Assignment Deed dated
              15.10.2024. It is claimed that the plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest, as of
              today, are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of a wide range of
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 2 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               maternity and children's clothing, maternity products such as breast pumps,
              breast pads etc., furniture and home furnishings, bedding, feeding, bathing
              equipments, travel equipments, toys, sanitary napkins and cleaning
              towels/wipes, diaper and toiletries for women and children including various
              types of lotions apart from other skincare and haircare products bearing the
              trademark MOTHERCARE, worldwide as well as in India, through its various
              retail stores in the United Kingdom or through their various franchisees and
              joint venture partners, spread across 32 countries, through 700 stores. It is
              claimed that the plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest has over the years
              bolstered its worldwide online sales, through the websites of its franchisee
              partners, including but not limited to www.mothercare.in in India, throughout
              South East Asia via the websites www.mothercare.co.id, www.mothercare.ph,
              www.mothercarethailand.com,                                   www.mothercare.com.my,                            and
              www.mothercare.com.vn, as well as in several Middle Eastern countries
              through www.mothercarestores.com, and in United Kingdom since September
              2023, through their franchisee partner, Boots, through the website
              www.mothercarestores.com.
13.       It is stated that the plaintiff's predecessor, MGBL's products bearing the
              trademark MOTHERCARE enjoy tremendous reputation and goodwill all
              around the world, including in India, owing to huge sales amassed by its
              products under the trademark MOTHERCARE. The details of the worldwide
              retail sales of the plaintiff and/or its predecessor from the years 2018 to 2025
              are enumerated in para 8 of the plaint. The statement of the account sales
              revenue of the plaintiff in India, as detailed in para 9 of the plaint, is reproduced
              hereunder:-
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 3 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
14.       Plaintiff claims that for numerous years, it has been marketing its
              products under the trademark MOTHERCARE through various media
              accessible by consumers in many countries, including India. The plaintiff also
              claims to have collaborated with various celebrities over the years which
              include Smile by famous Welsh Designer - Julian Macdonald, Ed-A-Mamma
              with Bollywood actress - Alia Bhatt etc. Plaintiff also claims to have made
              strident efforts to create social awareness through various marketing
              campaigns such as #BodyProudMums and #NotAPerfectMom. The plaintiff's
              products under the trademark MOTHERCARE have also been featured in
              various articles in various prominent newspapers such as the Hindu, Economic
              Times and fashion website such as India Fashion Forum. Plaintiff and/or its
              predecessor's products under the trademark MOTHERCARE are claimed to
              have been accorded with various awards.
15.       It is claimed that the plaintiff's predecessor has obtained registrations for
              the trademark MOTHERCARE including its stylised variations in numerous
              countries in Class 5, the details of which are enumerated in para 15 of the
              plaint. The plaintiff claims to be a registered proprietor of the trademark
              MOTHERCARE including its stylised variations in various classes in India,
              obtained by its predecessor, the details of which are reproduced hereunder:-
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 4 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
16.       Plaintiff claims that atleast since the year 2006, the plaintiff has sold its
              goods bearing the trademark MOTHERCARE in India. It claims to have
              opened its first store in India in the year 2006 in the city of Bengaluru at
              Shopper's Stop. It further expanded its footprint in India by entering into a joint
              venture with one of the largest real estate companies - DLF. In the year 2017,
              the plaintiff claims to have registered an Indian specific domain name
              MOTHERCARE.IN. In the year 2018, the plaintiff's joint venture partner -
              Reliance Brands Limited acquired the rights to operate all retail stores of the
              plaintiff for selling the products under the trademark MOTHERCARE. It is
              claimed that apart from the physical retail stores, the products bearing the
              trademark MOTHERCARE are sold through e-commerce platforms such as
              Amazon, Flipkart, Ajio etc. The details of the plaintiff's Indian franchise
              partner's gross retail sales to Indian consumers and stock sales to the franchise
              partner are enumerated in para 23 of the plaint.
17.       It is claimed that the plaintiff or its predecessor's social media presence
              under the trademark MOTHERCARW covers Facebook, Instragram,
              LinkedIn, X (Formerly Twitter) and other social media platforms. The details
              of the followers/subscribers on these platforms are enumerated in para 26 of the
              plaint, and reproduced hereunder:-
18.       It is claimed that the trademark MOTHERCARE has acquired the status
              of well-known trademarks under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, which
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 5 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               indicates that the trademark MOTHERCARE has come to exclusively and
              solely associated with the plaintiff and its predecessor, and has developed
              trans-border reputation owing to the plaintiff's predecessor's long, extensive
              and continuous use all over the world. Plaintiff also claims that its registrations
              and use of the trademark MOTHERCARE fall in the category of 'well known'
              trademarks as defined in
Section 2(1)(zg)
of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and
              thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the highest degree of protection.
19.       Plaintiff claims that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are claimed to be the
              proprietors/partners, trading as A.M. Agencies and/or Hamza Kids Wear in
              Hyderabad. Defendant no.3 is Asma Textiles operating in Hyderabad. As per
              the plaintiff, the defendant nos.1 and 2 sell and supply their products bearing
              the impugned trademark to defendant no.3 for further sale and distribution, and
              thus, are collectively engaged in manufacturing, supplying, and selling baby
              diapers, wipes, under-pads and other mother and baby products under the
              impugned trademark MOTHER CARE.
20.       Plaintiff claims that it came to its attention that the defendant no.1 has

filed a trademark application for the mark                                                        in Class-5, with
              user claim of 01.04.2008, which has been duly objected by the plaintiff.
              However, the said application has been abandoned by the defendant no.1 on
              23.01.2024.
21.       The plaintiff engaged the services of an investigator in July, 2023 and
              obtained details of the infringing activities of the defendants. Accordingly, a
              cease and desist notice was issued to the defendants on 31.10.2023 which was
              duly responded to by the defendant no.1 refuting such claims. After few
              correspondences, the plaintiff in the month of April, 2024 again engaged the
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 6 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               services of an independent investigator. Upon the investigator's visit to the
              defendant no.1's premises, he revealed that the defendants have stopped
              dealing in the brand MOTHER CARE and are therefore, not holding any stock
              thereof. However, plaintiff came to know through the investigation report dated
              27.02.2026 that the defendants have re-commenced use of the impugned
              trademark MOTHER CARE in respect of the baby products, though
              clandestinely, albeit under another trading name - Hamza Kids Wear.
22.       Plaintiff claims that the defendants are also largely using the brands
              Rolly Polly, Teddy, Mamy Poko and Love Baby etc. The investigation report
              further revealed that the defendants are using the impugned trademark
              MOTHER CARE under the erstwhile trading name - A.M. Agencies under its
              YouTube                pages            -         https://www.youtube.com/@a.magencies3847,
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0KK54rjzess,
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWk8LiMvw5o and also by third party
              listing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRdepwJqBGc alongwith the
              online                         listing                        on                       JustDial                      -
https://www.justdial.com/Hyderabad/A-M-Agencies-Opposite-Madina-Buildi
              ng-Quadri-Bazar-Pathar-Gatti/040P1233997294Z2K5R2_BZDET, and on the
              Google Maps - http://share.google/VaOMzr8imbsxOVIjS, which are still
              active and showcasing the impugned trademark MOTHER CARE.
23.       The plaintiff asserts that though the defendants have blatantly copied the
              plaintiff's trademark MOTHERCARE and are using an identical mark, i.e.,
              MOTHER CARE, evidencing the dishonesty and deception on the part of the
              defendants to ride on the coattails of the goodwill and reputation that vest in the
              trademark MOTHERCARE of the plaintiff.
24.       Predicated on the above, the plaintiff seeks an urgent ex-parte ad-interim
              injunction against the defendants.
25.       Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 7 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               plaintiff and perusing the pleadings and the documents on record, this Court is
              of the opinion that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction would be in order.
26.       At the outset, it would be apposite to have the tabular comparison of the
              rival marks which is extracted hereunder:-
27.       The perusal of the marks clearly indicates that the infringing trademark
              is "MOTHER CARE" while that of the plaintiff is "mothercare". Except for the
              difference that the infringing marks is in capital letters, the infringing mark is
              identical visually, structurally, phonetically as well as deceptively similar. The
              goods which are sold under the infringing trademark are the same as that of the
              plaintiff. The class of consumers which are users of the said products
              manufactured by the plaintiff as also the defendant are also identical/common.
              Therefore, it can be safely inferred that an unwary consumer with average
              intelligence and imperfect recollection is sure to get confused or deceived into
              believing that the goods manufactured by the defendant are those of the
              plaintiff or associated with it.
28.       It is pertinent to note that in response to the Cease and Desist notice
              dated 31.10.2023 issued by the plaintiff, the defendant vide the reply dated
              07.11.2023 had denied similarity and had asserted that, "THE TWO TRADE
              MARKS IN QUESTION ARE TOTALLY DISTINCT AND POLES APART in
              visual aspects." However, despite the said assertion, the trademark application
              bearing no.4908397 for the device mark "MotherCare", filed by the defendant
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 8 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               on 17.03.2021 disclosing the user detail as 01.04.2008, was abandoned as per
              the status dated 13.03.2026 filed by the plaintiff. The order dated 24.01.2024 of
              the Registrar of Trade Marks holding that the aforesaid trademark application
              as abandoned has also been placed on record by the plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts
              that it had filed opposition to the said application and since the defendant chose
              not to file its counter statement or persuade any further, the said application has
              been deemed abandoned.
29.       Though according to the plaintiff, the defendant had ceased all infringing
              operations thereafter, however, the defendants re-started the infringing
              activities sometime in February, 2026. The independent investigator is stated to
              have met Mr. Syed Jalaluddin, the defendant no.1, from whom he has claimed
              to have ascertained that products in the line of baby care and adult diapers were
              being manufactured and offered for sale under the brand MOTHER CARE.
              The internet investigation on various e-platforms also is stated to be disclosing
              availability of the infringing products under the defendant's mark MOTHER
              CARE.
30.       It is apparent from the above that the defendant has dishonestly adopted
              the mark MOTHER CARE without any justifiable reasons. As noted above, the
              two marks are identical, visually and phonetically. It is most likely to cause
              confusion with the unwary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect
              recollection. The consumer would associate the products of the defendant as
              those of the plaintiff or be under an impression that such goods are associated
              with the plaintiff somehow. Every purchase would cause financial loss to the
              plaintiff and unlawful financial gain to the defendant.
31.       The plaintiff has evidenced a prima facie strong case in its favour. The
              trademark registrations, worldwide sales figures as also the sales figures in
              India for the last many years coupled with the abandonment of the trademark
              application by the defendant no.1, post the opposition proceedings initiated by
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 9 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               the plaintiff tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall suffer
              irreparable loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in
              monetary terms in case an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order is not passed.
32.       In view of the above, the defendants, their successors, partners, assigns
              in business, licensees, franchisees, legal heirs and/or any persons claiming right
              through/from them, are restrained from manufacturing, offering for sale,
              selling, displaying, advertising online or offline or through any other online
              marketplace or social media, whether directly or indirectly dealing in any
              product, including but not limited to baby diapers, wipes & under-pads, etc.,
              bearing the impugned mark, inter alia, MOTHER CARE or its logo, i.e.,

,                                  and/or any other mark, that may be
              identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark MOTHERCARE.
33.       The defendants are also directed to take down the online listings on
              third-party platforms as mentioned in para 22 of the Order.
34.       Issue notice.
35.       Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendants within four
              weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks
              thereafter.
36.       Compliance of
Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC
shall be done within ten
              days from date.
CS(COMM) 365/2026
37.       Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
38.       Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the
              defendants through all permissible modes.
39.       The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the
              defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 10 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54
               the Written Statement, the defendants shall also file Affidavit of
              Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the Written
              Statement shall not be taken on record.
40.       Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30
              days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication
              filed by the plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of
              defendants be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be
              taken on record.
41.       In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their
              power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of
              reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
42.       If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same
              shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
43.       List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 16.07.2026 for completion of
              service and pleadings.
44.       List before the Court on 30.09.2026.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
              APRIL 7, 2026
              Sumit
CS(COMM) 365/2026                                                                                  Page 11 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/04/2026 at 21:50:54

Cancel